The tables and the architecture | Luis Gil Pita

Is table an architecture? Not, but yes in others some senses. It is not an architecture, because it is not a question of any enclosure or closed domain and to cutlery, it is clear. But maybe yes it is an architecture if we think it as constructed object subject to a few laws of the statics and also of the practice use – function and therefore capable of being thought as architectural object.

Nevertheless, always me the tables have admired me much more for anthropologic and social questions that for the strictly constructive – architectural ones because this space on which there develop so many habitual and daily functions of the man is not any more than a piece than high soil, a revolutionary artificialidad from the simplest invention, which allows us to be we opposite to others.

A place, the rethought, select soil brought to the waist that is accompanied of the seat to produce culture and company. Culture of the discussion, of the meeting of the speech and of the social relation between several, of the game, of the food and of the work. The artificial place where it is debated and verbal armistices are agreed under certain measures of domain that they avoid to come to blows … what would be of certain familiar meetings or of work if there did not exist the distance marked by the edges of the perimeter of this invention?

The table like that seen, it is a scene, a small theatre, where only we appear of waist for above hiding our faults of raised man, to represent what we are, or maybe what we are not of entire body, opposite to the others. Since the table is a scene and almost always wide, for several, is also more awkward, less light and more architectural in this respect of his immobility that his premium the chair. To the table we cannot take her to us of walk in the car, it does not resist the changes and the changes so much as the seats, and often it remains, seized to his spatial domain, when there happen changes of residence or place.

But also we like the tables for what they guard in his interior, that is to say under on, under the tablecloth, where they cover the legs of the animal, this oneiric world of the hidden thing that is where they play the children to the margin of the conversations of the major ones. Games also hidden from the major ones, from the fret accomplice and the not demonstrable sexuality or space covered for the traps and the step of not visible information.

Today the table, this plane which we work or discuss, already is not only royal, but as so many things it has transformed in the office of the computer or on the small screen of the telephone where we think our retainers or present speakers in a board other edges or vertexes much more remote that those of the traditional furniture that was the table with legs … Even this way capacity of meeting continues astonishing us with us themselves, in the work, and with the others in the action to eat and be to discuss that it generates of this one not architecture that is the table.